Bush's unpleasant surprise

Townhall ^ | 10/06/05 | Robert Novak

[Pikamax]

WASHINGTON -- Two questions were asked in conservative circles Monday when it was learned President Bush had nominated his lawyer, Harriet Miers, for the Supreme Court. Question No. 1: "Is this what we fought for?" Question No. 2: "What was he thinking?"

The conservative Republican base had tolerated George W. Bush's leftward lunges on education spending and prescription drug subsidies to re-elect him so that he could fill the Supreme Court with conservatives and send it rightward. But the White House counsel hardly looked like what they had expected.

Nothing could have more quickly deflated Republican spirits. The antidote to the Iraq-Katrina malaise was the spectacular confirmation performance by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and Republicans eagerly awaited Act Two: confirmation of a successor to social liberal Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. This was one issue where the wind was at Bush's back, not in his face. But he robbed his legions of spirit with the Miers nomination.

Miers hardly seems the true believer the Republican base was anticipating when the president's agents spread the word last week that his choice would please conservatives. In 1988, she was contributing to Al Gore's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee. She is listed as chairman of a 1998 American Bar Association committee that recommended legalization of gay adoptions and establishment of an International Criminal Court.

Presidential adviser Karl Rove, recognizing the peril here, was on the phone Monday morning assuring conservatives of Miers's intrepidity. The line from the White House was that Miers should not be compared with Justice David Souter, who was named to the court 15 years ago by the president's father and immediately turned left. While Souter was a stranger from New Hampshire to the elder Bush, it is claimed no president ever has known a court nominee as well as the younger Bush knows his fellow Texan. Skeptics are assured she is sound on abortion and other social issues.

Assuming those assurances are well founded, Miers's qualifications for the high court are still questioned. Members of Congress describe Miers as a nice person but hardly a constitutional scholar. Indeed, she might trip over questions that Roberts handled so deftly. People who have tried to engage her in serious conversation find her politely dull.

In singing Miers's praises, Bush agents contend her every thought is of the president's best interests, not her own. That may be a desirable profile for a White House counsel, but it hardly commends a Supreme Court justice who will be around long after George W. Bush is gone. By naming his longtime attorney, Bush risks the charge of cronyism. After the Michael Brown fiasco at FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), Harriet Miers might seem the last person he would name to the Supreme Court.

Two weeks ago, Bush was seriously considering another Texas woman he likes and knows well. The nomination of Federal Circuit Judge Priscilla Owen would have been highly regarded in the conservative community. Owen was confirmed for the appellate bench only after the compromise forged by the Group of Fourteen, and Republican senators advised the White House they did not want to fight for her again so soon. But there is no rule that O'Connor must be replaced by a Texas woman who is the president's pal. Many well-qualified conservative men and women were passed over to name Miers.

The question recurs: "What was he thinking?" Bushologists figure the president was irked by repetitive demands that he satisfy the base with his Supreme Court appointments. He also was irked by the conservative veto of his Texas friend and Miers's predecessor at the White House, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. So, Bush showed the critics by naming another close aide lacking Gonzales's track record to draw the ire of the party's right wing.

Immensely enjoying himself was Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, who let it be known to colleagues that he recommended Miers to the president. With Miers at his side, Reid praised her a little for contributing to Al Gore and a lot for being a "trial lawyer" -- no encomium in the GOP. With friends like Reid, Harriet Miers hardly needs enemies.

[cspackler]

And, I do believe that he fairly quickly pulled Arafat's standing invitation to defile the Lincoln bedroom. That was quite the improvement.

[Miss Marple]

Are you honestly claiming you got nothing for your vote? Have you returned your tax cut to the Treasury? You don't think John Bolton should be at the UN? You want to de-fund the military?

As I said: exaggeration and ranting is all I am reading.

[Mo1]

Thank you for a great rant, Miss Marple!!

I posted this on another thread ... and thought I'd post it there

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1497540/posts?page=2#2

To: lisaann8
"Here's my question for all my conservative friends -- why does it appear that the Right is seeking a conservative activist for the court but it's not okay if the other side wants an "activist judge" for the court?"



That is a question only they can answer

As for myself

I just want a Judge that will follow the Constitution

For if they just do that .... then I have nothing to fear

You either believe in the Constitution and what our Founding Father wrote ... or you don't

It is my belief that President Bush shares that thinking and that is why he choose Harriet Miers
2 posted on 10/06/2005 5:12:42 AM CDT by Mo1

[Cboldt]

Columnist Robert Novak has also been caught promoting the misinformation. In fact, the evidence shows that Miers was the chair of a panel that merely passed along recommendations from various ABA entities for consideration by the ABA. There's no evidence that she put her personal stamp of approval on those controversial positions

Ummm ... Novak didn't say she took a postion. Are you saying the below statement of Novak's is false?

She is listed as chairman of a 1998 American Bar Association committee that recommended legalization of gay adoptions and establishment of an International Criminal Court.

[Miss Marple]

From what I can determine, she chaired a committee that passed along recommendations for items to be discussed. One of those was a proposal that the ABA support gay adoptions. She did not support the proposal; it was her position as chair of the committee to forward the list of items that were to be discussed.

So, as far as I can tell, Novak is either misinformed or deliberately lying.

[Cboldt]

NO NEW ANTI-GUN LAWS!

But he said he would sign the renewal of the AWB if Congress passed it.

[cynicom]

The subject is Ms Miers, putting up a smoke screen to defend a non-defendable position is an admission of failure.

Stick with Ms Miers.

[Cboldt]

Bush has no control over the border, that is congress's job.

Oh, man. The Executive is charged with enforcing the laws.

[counterpunch]

So, Bush showed the critics by naming another close aide lacking Gonzales's track record to draw the ire of the party's right wing.

No, Bush chose to reward the narrow base of evangelicals over the broader interests of the conservative movement as a whole. Bush evoked ire from the intellectual conservative legal establishment that produced people such as John Roberts by injecting the Church Lady into the very heart of their turf. Bush approached the two vacancies with a "one for you, one for me" attitude.

[Mo1]

Even though some of her short term memory has gone by the wayside, she still can't believe the Democrats of today

My mother stopped voting for the Dems when Reagan came to office

She didn't take to kindly to those who spoke ill of her Ronnie .. and wouldn't hesitate to tell anyone who tried

But she never resorted to the name calling and vicious attacks that we are seeing today of the Dem Party

I think it stems from having manners and respect for others

She never got personal and would hit them with facts

[Cboldt]

Your criticism of the example is one dimensional. It considers only Miers projected performance, and yet there are other ramifications to this nomination.

The charge of cronyism can be leveled. Of course, that dosn't make the chagre true, but the fact the charge can be leveled is a ramification. She vetted GWB in 1994, did the background check looking for dirt on his background.

Someone wiser than me pointed out that the nominations of both Roberts and Miers sends a signal that conservatism should be hidden, for a person who wants to get on the SCOTUS bench.

You have also omitted the context that the post was made in. The "it" in "It doesn't matter" could refer only to the feeling of letdown that some conservatives experienced upon learning of this pick. I'll conceded that the "it" may also refer to the end result; but I doubt a brilliant poster would make the association you attribute.

[Miss Marple]

I see. You claim that conservatives want something for their vote, but apparently this one court appointment is the only thing conservatives wanted, if I understand you correctly.

News flash: there are other reasons people voted for him.

I support Miers because she is a good choice given the make-up of the Senate. Those of you who want to put someone else up in order to have a battle are assuming that all of the GOP will stick with the nominee. That is a hopeful position, but I sure wouldn't want to hang my hat on Chaffee, Snowe, Collins, Voinovich, Hagel, and McCain.

[Carolinamom]

100% agreement here. I belong to that base also.

[cynicom]

I admit to being a non party conservative. Always have been.

Bush apologists are in fact doing a good job of driving away conservative votes in 06 and 08. I understand some have a problem, differentiating between ideology and party. The two have nothing in common.

[Cboldt]

... as far as I can tell, Novak is either misinformed or deliberately lying.

You asserted the same thing he did. "she chaired a committee that passed along recommendations for items to be discussed. One of those was a proposal that the ABA support gay adoptions." Neither you or Novak asserted that was her personal opinion. Or if either one of you did, I skipped right over it in my reading.

[Ramcat]

"If you disagree, give me some good examples of how he's acted like a real Republican. "

Not sure what a "real Republican" is but how about the Bush Tax Cut?
How about Partial Birth Abortion legislation?
How about John Bolton at the UN?
How about Social Security Reform?
How about his lower court appointments? How about fighting a war on terror while his enemies and friends alike stab him in the back?

Short list:
Powell, Breemer, Specter, Collins, Snown, Hagel, McCain, Lott, O'Neal, Clarke, FBI, CIA, Justice Dept., DeWine, Voinovich, Savage, Chavez, Schroder, Coulter, Will, etc, etc. Add your own.

This might lend some insight as to why President Bush is turning toward people he trusts personally.

Just a guess.

[Cboldt]

I support Miers because she is a good choice given the make-up of the Senate. Those of you who want to put someone else up in order to have a battle are assuming that all of the GOP will stick with the nominee. That is a hopeful position, but I sure wouldn't want to hang my hat on Chaffee, Snowe, Collins, Voinovich, Hagel, and McCain.

The extent of politicization(sp?) of SCOTUS nominations is sad. Our government is seriously wounded.

[EmilyGeiger]

Well spoken. Thank you.


Pinging you to post #97 for encouragement from MM. Also check out Southack's post, can't remember # but in first 20.

[Mo1]

Bush apologists are in fact doing a good job of driving away conservative votes in 06 and 08.

I heard that argument before the 04 elections

I believe the President rec'd several million more votes then in 00

[Ramcat]

"Bush evoked ire from the intellectual conservative legal establishment that produced people such as John Roberts by injecting the Church Lady into the very heart of their turf"

I contend that the country rather than being subjected to the "intellectual conservative legal establishment and the intellectual liberal establishment" would be better served by a common sense approach to the law.

The Constitution is not that difficult to understand.